[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum. ] §39.2.4.prDies cautioni praestitutus si finietur, praetoris uel praesidis officium erit ex causa uel reum notare uel protelare eum et, si hoc localem exigit inquisitionem, ad magistratus municipales hoc remittere.
[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum.] If the day appointed for the security has expired, it will be the duty of the praetor or governor, after examining the case, either to mark the defendant with infamy or to grant him an extension of time, and, if this requires a local inquiry, to refer the matter to the municipal magistrates.
§39.2.4.1Si intra diem a praetore constituendum non caueatur, in possessionem eius rei mittendus est.
If security is not given within the period to be fixed by the praetor, [the claimant] must be put into possession of that property.
'eius rei' sic accipe, siue tota res sit siue pars sit rei.
Understand "of that property" to mean whether it is the whole property or a part of the property.
§39.2.4.2An tamen is, qui non admittit, etiam pignoribus a magistratibus coerceatur? non puto, sed in factum actione tenebitur: nam et si a praetore missus non admittatur, eadem actione utendum est.
But can a person who does not admit [the claimant into possession] be coerced by the magistrates even by means of pledges? I do not think so, but he will be liable to an action on the facts; for even if a person sent by the praetor is not admitted, the same action must be used.
§39.2.4.3Duas ergo res magistratibus municipalibus praetor uel praeses iniunxit, cautionem et possessionem, cetera suae iurisdictioni reseruauit.
Therefore, the praetor or governor imposed two tasks upon the municipal magistrates, namely security and possession, reserving other matters to his own jurisdiction.
§39.2.4.4Si forte duretur non caueri, ut possidere liceat (quod causa cognita fieri solet) non duumuuiros, sed praetorem uel praesidem permissuros: item ut ex causa decedatur de possessione.
If perchance the failure to give security persists, so that possession [as owner] should be permitted (which is usually done after an investigation of the cause), it is not the duumvirs but the praetor or governor who will grant this permission; likewise, that there should be a departure from possession based on cause.
§39.2.4.5Praetor ait: 'dum ei, qui aberit, prius domum denuntiari iubeam'. abesse autem uidetur et qui in iure non est: quod et Pomponius probat: uerecunde autem praetorem denuntiari iubere, non extrahi de domo sua.
The praetor says: "provided that I order notice to be given first at the house of the person who is absent." Now, a person who is not present in court is also considered to be absent, which Pomponius also approves; however, the praetor respectfully orders notice to be given, not that the person be dragged out of his house.
sed 'domum, in quam degit denuntiari' sic accipere debemus, ut et si in aliena domo habitet, ibi ei denuntietur.
But we ought to understand "notice to be given at the house where he lives" in such a way that even if he lives in someone else's house, notice should be given to him there.
quod si nec habitationem habeat, ad ipsum praedium erit denuntiandum uel procuratori eius uel certe inquilinis.
But if he does not even have a dwelling, notice must be given at the property itself, or to his agent, or at least to the tenants.
§39.2.4.6Totiens autem praetorem exigere denuntiationem intellegendum est, si sit cui denuntietur: ceterum si non sit, ueluti quod hereditaria insula est nec dum hereditas adita, uel si heres non exstet nec inhabitetur, cessat haec pars edicti.
However, it must be understood that the praetor requires notice only if there is someone to whom notice can be given; otherwise, if there is no one—for instance, because it is an apartment building belonging to an inheritance and the inheritance has not yet been accepted, or if no heir exists and it is uninhabited—this part of the edict does not apply.
est tamen tutius libellum ad ipsas aedes proponere: fieri enim potest, ut ita monitus defensor existat.
It is, however, safer to post a notice on the building itself; for it may happen that a defender appears, having been warned in this way.
§39.2.4.7In eum, qui quid eorum quae supra scripta sunt non curauerit, quanti ea res est, cuius damni infecti nomine cautum non erit, iudicium datur: quod non ad quantitatem refertur, sed ad id quod interest, et ad utilitatem uenit, non ad poenam.
Against one who has failed to perform any of the things written above, an action is granted for the value of the matter for which security was not given under the heading of threatened damage; this is referred not to the quantitative value, but to the interest [of the plaintiff], and is aimed at compensation, not penalty.
§39.2.4.8Hoc autem iudicium certam condicionem habet, si postulatum est: ceterum qui non postulauit, experiri non potest.
Moreover, this action has a certain condition, namely if it has been applied for; otherwise, one who has not applied for it cannot bring the action.
postulare autem proprie hoc dicimus pro tribunali petere, non alibi.
And by "applying" we properly mean requesting before the tribunal, and not elsewhere.
§39.2.4.9Si tam uicinum urbi municipium sit, ut magistratu se non interponente potuerit praetor uel praeses adiri, potest dici cessare hanc actionem aduersus magistratus, quasi nihil intersit, cum in tua potestate fuerit a praetore uel praeside desiderare in possessionem mitti.
If the municipality is so close to the city that, even if the magistrate does not intervene, the praetor or governor could have been approached, it can be said that this action against the magistrates does not apply, as if there were no interest at stake, since it was in your power to request from the praetor or governor to be put into possession.
§39.2.4.10Haec autem actio cum rei habeat persecutionem, et heredi et in heredem et perpetuo dabitur.
Since this action is for the recovery of a thing, it will be granted both to an heir and against an heir, and without limitation of time.